Russia Marches On . . .

Russia tries to keep up the momentum as it looks to face Spain on Thursday. Ger Clancy, our ever loving Irishman, breaks down Russia’s run and their chances for the cup.

After more than 16 years in the doldrums, Russian football is finally going places. Not since Euro ’88 have Russian footballers seen the second round of any international major tournament. Now their inspired victory over a highly-rated Dutch team, who had swept away all before them, has landed them a Euro 2008 semi-final spot against Spain. Sure, the Russians have not been without some good fortune in their quest. Nevertheless they are certainly deserving of a semi-final place and their attacking football in the last two games has won them over on the side of many neutrals. The Russians are a win away from a finals appearance, and two from a championship win. This was a possibility unthinkable a mere two weeks ago. But it was an outcome easily divined once coach Guus Hiddink’s brought in Andrei Arshavin (even though he was suspended for the first two games). Hiddick’s move has defined Russia’s tournament.

If you would have suggested that Russia would be a semi-final contender two weeks ago would have been greeted with doubt if not raucous laughter. After all, Russia couldn’t have begun the tournament any worse than they did in their opening game with Spain in Salzburg. In spite of a decent start, in which they held the ball well but lacked urgency, Russia conceded a very cheap goal when Fernando Torres skinned Denis Kolodin to set up David Villa. Everything went to pieces after that. The Spaniards eventually won 4-1, with Villa netting a hat-trick, a rare thing in international football and harsh lesson for the Russians. The Slavs performance was atrocious. Poor passing, no running off the ball, no pace to their game, and suicidal defending greased Spain’s victory. The Russians, however, would learn from the defeat.

Russia’s next match against Greece was a do-or-die game for both teams. Both had lost their opening games. The Greeks went down 2-0 to Sweden in an insipid performance. Although Russia improved immensely from the first match, their play was extremely nervous and uncertain. Their fate hinged on a goalkeeping disaster at 33 minutes when Nikopolodis charged rashly from his line to deal with a hopeless through ball from Bilyatidinov. Sergei Semak beat Nikopolodis and crossed the ball for Konstantin Zyrianov to push it into an empty net. It gave Russia 1-0 lead and the precious lifeline they desperately needed. The second half petered out into possibly the worst game of the tournament. The expected Greek lacked effort and their comeback never materialized. Three precious points for the Russians now meant a win against Sweden would take them through to the last eight.

Arshavin came back just in time to duel with the Swedes. Russia looked immensely improved to battle their medieval rivals. After a shaky start, the Russians took control of the ball and hardly lost it for almost an hour. By half, they had an unassailable 2-0 lead against a Swedish team which simply forgot to show up. Arshavin skinned Mellburg and Nillsonn time and again on the Swedish right, immediately validating Hiddick’s move to bring him onboard. After a number of misses Russia finally took the lead on 24 minutes when Anyukov crossed to an unmarked Pavluchenko who slotted home. Russia kept Sweden on the ropes until their second goal when Zhrikov crossed for Arshavin to calmly slot home.

Russia lost a lot of control in the game from that point on, easily and often surrendering possession, but there was no need to worry. Sweden’s strikers couldn’t hit the side of a barn. Russia could have gobbled up more goals on the break, but 2-0 satisfied their hunger. And so, for the first time ever, a Russian national football team reached the second round of a major tournament. Finally some joy for their long-suffering fans.

Much has been written about Russia’s victory over Holland. And frankly, much of it is rubbish. There is no doubt Russia outplayed them, even embarrassed them. But much of the analysis fails to take a number of important factors into account. First, Holland went up in smoke. This is not unusual and football fans are well aware of the Dutch tendency to implode when the world is at their feet. Secondly, the management on the Dutch bench was as incompetent as it was lazy. No attempt was made to change things significantly, especially on the tactical front. It was clear from the start that Sneijder, Van Der Vaart and De Jong were being cleaned out by Ignashevich and Kolodin. Although Robbin Van Persie did come on at half time, Anyukov simply disappeared. The Dutch were also clearly exhausted and the Russians obviously much fitter.

None of this is to take away from Russia’s excellent performance. It was probably the single best performance ever by a Russian national team. From early on they took the game to Holland and eventually were rewarded early in the second half when Semak crossed for Pavlyuchenko to score. From this point on, a Dutch comeback was expected but it never happened. Laboured, tired and listless, the Dutch were consistently beaten to 50/50 balls and were reduced to sporadic shots that went hopelessly wide or over. The Russians motored on and kept the Dutch at arms length in total comfort, until disaster struck right at the end when Van Nistelrooy headed an inswinger past Akinfeev from close in. That was hard blow to the Russians, but in extra time they took up where they left off and almost completely dominated in midfield. Early in the second period of extra-time, the Dutch finally collapsed when, for the umpteenth time Arshavin skinned Andre Oijer and crossed for Torbinskii to finish sweetly. A short time later Arshavin himself killed off the Dutch with a cool finish at the far post. With that, Moscow exploded.

So, can Russia really win it all? The Russians are now at the centre of much speculation and indeed betting, and they certainly can win the tournament. They are without a doubt the darlings of the championship and loved by neutrals for their attacking football. Beating the Dutch would have won them a lot of fans around Europe too. But is all this enough? A lot of comparisons have been made, especially with Greece in 2004, but I’m sure Hiddink would prefer another role model. Greece was the most unpopular winners ever, owing to their atrocious style of play. Russia in ‘08 is more like Denmark in 1992: swashbuckling, all-attack and hugely entertaining. There is no doubt the Russians can beat Spain, and may well do so.

Still, Russia is not without its problems. Kolodin and Torbinskii are suspended and the former is likely to be replaced by Vasilli Berezutskii, an off-form player who hasn’t kicked a ball in the tournament yet. He’s facing a long night marking Fernando Torres. Spain will be battled hardened and wily after their bruising encounter with Italy, and the Russian habit of standing off forwards and allowing them to run at Ignashevich and Berezutskii will be punished, just as Denis Kolodin was against the Greeks. Russia’s weakest link by far is their goalkeeper Akinfeev, who is surely the poorest left in the tournament. Also the game with Holland may have taken a lot out of the Russians both physically and mentally. Performances as big as that are very difficult to follow up. Hiddink however, has, as usual, come up trumps so far, so too have the players and it may not be beyond the Russians to bring the cup home….

Related

The politics of culture is perhaps more contentious in Russia than in other countries. Since the 1930s, there has been a close relationship between the state and artistic creative unions. The best historical example of this was when Socialist Realism became state policy with Stalin’s 1932 decree “On the Reconstruction of Literary and Art Organizations.”

Despite the ideological control over the arts, creative unions nevertheless presented artists with an avenue to influence state policy, as well as a collective body representative of artists’ mutual intellectual and social and economic interests.

Today, the relationship between the current Russian state and its artists is not so overt, but as Danil Dondurey points out in his article “The ‘vertical of power’ grabs Russian cinema,” this doesn’t mean that it is no less contentious. This was evidenced in the recent congress of the Russian Film Makers Union, where an on going struggle between pro-Kremlin and Putin bud Nikita Mikhalkov and more liberal forces calling for his ouster has apparently come out in the former’s favor. With his victory, Russia’s cinematic elite have abandoned politics altogether. As Dondurey explains,

Cinema does, of course, directly affect us all. The underlying theme of the recent congress was changes to the creative unions. To judge from the published plans, they are all going to have to abandon their intellectual mission and become a mixture of trade union and social services. They will restrict themselves to helping the old, providing money for medicines and arranging funerals. And that’s it! There will be no more thoughts about politics in the cinema, partnerships between government and business, no more talk about the quality of films or educating the audience. And above all no more programmes linking us up with other cultures and countries.

This is momentous. The creative unions go back to 1934. Their task was to mediate between the artist and the state, the artist and society, the artist and business. They looked after the interests of the creative professions. As of today, this mission is over.

In fact, this is a process which has been going on ever since the fall of communism. They have not been engaged with cultural politics and economics, or been in real partnership with the Ministry of Culture for a long time. They have mainly been concerned with anniversary celebrations, recommendations for honours and finding a use for the property granted them by Khrushchev and Brezhnev.

It was the cultural politician extraordinaire Nikita Mikhalkov who first announced that the creative unions were no longer going to be communities of like-minded people charged with managing partnerships between artists and the state. All these functions were to be transferred to the specially created Academies, which have been springing up like mushrooms.

It is significant that during the 10 hours the congress was in session not a word (!) was actually said about Russian cinema. Nothing about its crisis, or about how to come through it, nothing about any achievements or failures. No one talked about what we should do next, although these congresses only happen once every five years. There was no analysis, only pompous declarations of love for the way it used to be. No one was looking for co-operation or reconciliation.

It was presented as a conflict between a small group who supported the incumbent president Khutsiev and the overwhelming majority of film-makers. It was not by accident that there was no government representative at the Congress – neither the Minister of Culture nor anyone else.

So what direction will Russian cinema take now? In all European countries the government acts on the arms’ length principle: they subsidise the arts, but decisions are taken by the artists themselves. This is how it is in Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Norway… In Russia strategic questions about the organisation and development of the film industry have not been discussed for 10 years. Perhaps things really would improve if decisions were all taken behind the scenes?

You should have seen this ‘Congress of Victors’. Everyone, even people who knew nothing about the politics of cinema, knew what was going on. What we were watching was not just one famous person attacking another (who is important, talented, moneyed and very well connected, a kind of cultural oligarch).

There has been a lot of discussion recently, even beyond the industry, about the ‘vertical of power’ which is being set up within Russian cinema. After the Congress many people will winder whether anyone in the country is going to able to take decisions about culture on behalf of the wider public. Will it be possible to sack cultural bureaucrats without an imperial decree? Do we need cultural tsars who can’t really be asked where the money is coming from.

Post Views: 291

Related

Russian metals mogul Alisher Usmanov wants Cheburashka to come home.And he’s willing to plop down $3 million to buy back the international rights for the creature “not known to science” from the US firm Films by Jove.Stating that “our heritage must be returned to Russia,” Usmanov, who is also a fan of Cheburashka, wants to give the 500 cartoons to a children’s television channel proposed by Putin.The problem is that Films by Jove is asking a $10 million.For Usmanov it should be that big of a problem.The guy is worth an estimated $2.6 billion.

Cheburashka was created in 1969 by cartoonist Eduard Uspensky.“One day, during the Bolshevik era, I saw this tiny girl,” Uspensky told RFE/RL.

And she was wearing a beaver coat, an enormous flappy thing. And this little girl took a step without any help, and she fell over. And when she fell her parents said, “Look, you’ve cheburakhnulas [fallen over]! You little ‘cheburashka’!” And I hadn’t heard the word before, it was a very rare word. And so that little girl, with this vast collar around her head, gave me the idea for the cartoon.

How did the lovable Cheburashka get into the hands of the American cultural imperialists? Apparently he was yet another victim of 1990s privatization.In 1992, the Russian Union of Animators sold the merchandising rights to the collection to Films by Jove for a pittance of its potential worth, $900,000. “There are lots of films in that collection — about 60 or 70 hours’ worth,” explained Ernest Rakhimov, the director of the Union of Animators’ archive. “The best are the old films — ‘The Humpbacked Horse,’ ‘The Scarlet Flower,’ ‘The Snow Queen.’ They’re sitting on a gold mine. It’s an early collection, early animations — those animations were done to the same standard as Disney films.”The Union is now disputing the deal arguing that Films by Jove took advantage of the lack of Russian laws regarding film rights and “managed to trick the previous animators’ administration, and they signed a contract that turned out to have taken away our freedom.”

If Cheburashka is really a victim of capitalist malfeasance, then will we soon witness the rise of his revolutionary alter-ego: Che-burashka!